Banti Banafar @ Ritesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14098 MP

                                                            1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     CRA No. 1869 of 2017
                                       (BANTI BANAFAR @ RITESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                         Dated : 28-08-2023
                                Shri Saurabh Kumar Tiwari - Advocates for the appellant.

                                Shri Pramod Thakre - Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

Heard on I. A. No.13090 of 2022.

This is the third application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant. The first application was dismissed as not pressed

on 15.04.2019 whereas the second application was rejected by a detailed order passed by this court on 06.12.2019. However, what the appellant counsel submits is on two grounds. Firstly, that so far as the accused No.3 viz. Neeraj Kanojiya is concerned he was granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Cr.A. No.1841 of 2017. Therefore, in terms of parity he must be released on bail. Further contention is that he has already undergone a custody of about 9 years 11 months. Therefore, following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. the State of U.P. and others in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 on 05.10.2021 the appellant should be released

on bail.

So far as the first contention is concerned, we do not find any ground to accept the same. The accused No.3/Neeraj Kanojiya was granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Cr.A. No.1841 of 2017 on merits. It was found that there was no case made out against him and therefore, bail was granted. However, so far as the present accused is concerned his application has been dismissed on merits on the ground that he was involved in offence committed. Therefore, only because co-accused has been released on bail present accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 9/1/2023 1:29:10 PM

cannot be released on bail. Reasons for grant of bail to accused No.3/Neeraj have been assigned in order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Cr.A. No.1841 of 2017 and reasons for rejecting the bail of present appellant has been assigned in order dated 06.12.2019. Hence, we find no good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail on this ground.

So far as the second contention is concerned we have considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Saudan Singh (supra) wherein it is held that the period of detention should be considered as one of the grounds for enlarging the accused on bail. However, certain exceptions have been made thereon, such as the manner in which the offence has been

committed, the brutality of the offences and other factors etc. In the instant case, the postmortem report indicates that the deceased has sustained as many as 13 injuries. It is virtually a gang murder committed by the accused herein. Therefore, in view of the brutality of the offence committed and lack of changed circumstances, we do not find that the accused herein would be entitled for the benefit by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saudan Singh (supra).

Accordingly, I.A. No.13090 of 2022 is rejected.

Post along with Cr.A. No.4811 of 2017.

                                   (RAVI MALIMATH)                                    (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                     CHIEF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE

                         Loretta




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 9/1/2023
1:29:10 PM